-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 11/21/2014 7:09 AM, Siegel, David wrote:
> Most written peering agreements have a clause that says you can't > provide that data unless required to by authorities and only in > compliance with applicable local law. > > The article says that's still an open question: > > "Channel 4 News has been unable to establish whether Reliance > Communications was served with a warrant to authorise this and the > company has not responded to our calls." > Right, I noticed that bit. :-) Cheers, - - ferg > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- From: NANOG > [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Paul Ferguson Sent: > Friday, November 21, 2014 7:59 AM To: NANOG Subject: Transit, > Exchange Point Agreements, and Acceptable Use? > > I'll apologize up front if this offends anyone's sensitivities as > to what is relevant for list conversation... but one sentence in > this Channel4 News story (from what I understand, Channel4 is a > very popular news source in the UK) struck me as perhaps in > violation of some sort of peering and/or transit agreement. Cable > and Wireless: > > "...even went as far as providing traffic from a rival foreign > communications company, handing information sent by millions of > internet users worldwide over to spies." > > The entire article is here: > > http://www.channel4.com/news/spy-cable-revealed-how-telecoms-firm-worked-with-gchq > > My question is this: Do willful actions such as these violate > peering, transit, and/or exchange agreements in any way? > > Thanks, > > - ferg > > > - -- Paul Ferguson VP Threat Intelligence, IID PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2 Key fingerprint: 19EC 2945 FEE8 D6C8 58A1 CE53 2896 AC75 54DC 85B2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlRvVqQACgkQKJasdVTchbJ6kgEAi3mOTZJ0FxEOg0b/x049hwyE CdrWUHXSsxRlu4P5KZUA/0KT0XzPzvH0O/ZUhjT8xL+gWxGXPQcwSNk1slJ6oQE4 =tXZ4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----